$cienti$t
i'm thinking of a particular scientist. well known and well respected in some circles. for some his word might as well come from the almighty hisself. anywho, he's a fraud. intentionally or otherwise i don't know. he gets away with it because: one, statistical analysis is way beyond 99.44% of human brains. two, social engineering. his results resonate with people who want to believe. careful analysis of one of his works shows he uses a confidence level that's way too high. so he concludes the data support the hypothesis. careful analysis of another of his work on data from from a completely unrelated field shows he uses a confidence level that's way too low. so he concludes the data don't support the hypothesis. sigh. here's my proposal. give him the data from the first topic but tell him it's from the second topic. and vice versa. see if he gets the same results. my money is no. i'm gonna be so rich.